About your Search

20120701
20120731
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
to texas saying we don't want to participate in the healthcare reform act even if the federal government showers us with money. rick scott was an executive of a company mireed in healthcare fraud while he was there. what is his logic? >> he's trying to force poor people to go to his healthcare clinics and hand over whatever money they have over to him. it's just naked cruelty and corruption. nothing more than that. it's something that is becoming more and more closely associated with the right wing and the republican party every day. >> eliot: i'm glad to see congressman, you have not lost your capacity to go right to the matter. pull in punches. call it as you see it. something that endeared to you many but not everyone who was the target of your slings and arrows and forthright comments. the question, and we've had this conversation just a few minutes ago with one of your former colleagues. when the 20% goes to the hospital and gets care, who pays for it? >> the fact is that they can't get that care. if you have cancer, there is no hospital in the country that is going to give you free
there is some conversation and to the outcome. but there are legal challenges texas in particular. the brennan center is involved in the challenge in texas. >> they cut back on voting rights all across the country. a lot of them have been blocked or blunted this year. a lot of these voteer i.d. laws violate the voter right act. the justice department looked at it and said these acts cannot go forward because they take votes away from people of color latino blacks. there was a trial last week in federal court where the justice department argued in texas and we were in that case with them and we think this will prove that many, many people and the state didn't have a good answer to how they could vote. >> eliot: if in texas you can vote, this will take one state off the map where there is a hurdle to vote. pennsylvania is a real concern. this may not be an easy or immediate challenge. >> pennsylvania is a big key state in any presidential election. they recently just passed their law. it is being put into effect right before the election. the philadelphia inquirer looked at this and said somethi
in pennsylvania, significant numbers in texas. there are legal troubles as well there is a trial question questioning it, is there way we can strike toes these statutes down? >> only in certain places. the reason why the challenge is going on here in texas where we have our national convention and in south carolina is because they're covered by section 5 of the voting rights act that requires any changes to the time place or manner in which an election is carried out because of their previous bad behavior disenfranchiseed so many because of race and other differences, they have to make sure that they go through the justice department voting right section. the justice department determined through their research if we pass our allow these particular programs to be implemented in texas and in south carolina, that those billions of americans as we mentioned earlier would not be able to vote and as a carry out of that, very well we know it has to be stopped. the law provides that protection. but section 5 is not covered throughout the country. it's only covered in those states that has an est
, then texas officials are making pregnant women powerless. that brings us to our number of the day. 39.38. that's the section in the proposed new rules for the texas department of health and human services. it says that doctors cannot even tell their patients about abortions. caregivers can lose state funds if they mention that abortion is an option, or if they say where one can be performed. a woman cannot talk about to her own physician about a perfectly legal medical procedure. this policy mandates less knowledge and less medical help, and interferes with the relationship between a doctor and patient in a grotesque way. simply put it endangerers the well-being of the mother. texas often likes to keep government out of the way of business. well, what goes on in a doctor's office is personal business, and government needs to get out. >>it's the place where democracy is supposed to be the great equalizer, where your vote is worth just as much as donald trump's. we must save the country. it starts with you. v it's go time! >>every weeknight cenk uygur calls out the mainstream media.
vote. they have a very strong case. in other states, their state voter i.d. laws such as texas and south carolina, those laws are being challenged by the justice department under the voting rights act. the voting right acts says you cannot pass laws that make it hard for minorities to vote. if you pass these laws, they have to get them approved in advance by the experts at the civil rights division. they said wait a minute there, is clear evidence that hundreds of thousands of latino and black voters, much more than the white community, would be affected. >> eliot: that's because they're covered by the voter rights act from prior history. >> under section 5 which applied originally to the states that were oppressing minority voting rights in the 1960s. the state of texas governor rick perry said, oh, the answer is the voting right act is inconstitutional. we don't need it any more. it's hold history. but they would have a better argument if they do in the keep passing laws that would make it heart to vote. >> eliot: rick perry was going to include the justice department--michae
it good for new york or cal or texas. >> it may be good for those individual states. those states elect legislatures to support that and elect governors who support that, but it doesn't make it good for the federal government as a whole. if you look at the approval, it might have changed but it's still upside down. >> eliot: you're talking about a process distinction. yes, i agree with you. it was a state that passed it, massachusetts passed it, but it had an individual mandate penalty or tax call it whatever you want. it says if you don't pay into the system system you must contribute. otherwise you're a free rider. the same comment that barack obama made for the whole nation. is there anything logically wrong with that argument let alone who passed it. >> the state of massachusetts was a small state. it had a balanced budgets and they were able to pay for that. we as a big country we don't have a balanced budget and we are are not able to pay for that. >> eliot: we will get closer to a balanced budget who people who are now free riders--this is mitt romney's logic--if you're a free ri
and it looks like there was a concerted effort to fort worth, texas the rate up or dan, that's another issue. >> we are peeling back the unions in what will be a conspiracy based on a conspiracy but we are now getting tangible evidence that regulator you see knew about this. why do you think that might have been? what's the current sense of what the regulatory involvement might have been? >> i think the regulatos, especially in 2008, may have been very concerned if libor soared, it would send a message to the rest of the community that those banks were in bigger trouble than people realized 689 they were happy to see some manipulation perhaps. my gut instinct was theny were happy. we should be clear to your viewers, the libor is the rate at which banks borrow from each other. it should be almost riskless. that was the rate that was set. i believe the regulators had a vested interest out of fear, out of desire to control the markets to see the rates lower than they could have been. if they were manipulating it, it was for the greater good. >> so they thought. they we
football season starts you're going to see sold-out crowds in texas georgia, lsu, alabama. that sort of fanaticism. i think people will go on as usual, not necessarily without corruption. it doesn't serve any academy purpose. it simply does not. it's fun exciting, visceral, it serve no academic purpose. it is sucking all the air out of the room. >> eliot: it has gotten bigger than it's utility. you said at the top that the ncaa surprised put. what do you think caused them to pivot and act in a way that certainly their track record would not suggest. >> your show, shows all over the country, columnists all over the country, i think they felt that. to some degree they'll say it's almost cosmetic. the ncaa wants people to think that they're tough when there are so many problems with college football. my feeling cosmetic or not i think they heard the people. there were millions all over the country who were very very upset and offended indignant and shocked about what happened at penn state. the ncaa said forget precedence, forget all that, we have to take drastic action. and folks this
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)